Mr. Casey's Suspect Pursuit

May 21, 1986|The Morning Call

The pursuit of the National Broadcasting Co. by the head of this country's intelligence-gathering agency poses strong concerns for those in the news- gathering business. William Casey, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, thinks NBC violated the law in broadcasting a news item about secret U.S. submarine operations in Soviet territorial waters. He has asked the Justice Department to investigate his charge. This indicates that Mr. Casey plans to put his legal money where his political mouth is.

The NBC foray follows the CIA director's attempt, through the Justice Department, to prevent The Washington Post from publishing an article he found objectionable, an attempt that failed. To fire up a journalistic cliche, this could have a chilling effect on the quality of information that is provided to the American people.

Mr. Casey's harangue carries a faint odor of "beheading the messenger." Perfection is an aspired, but yet unattained, state of this profession. As there are those in public life who err, to the detriment of themselves and their constituents, there are, indeed, those in the news media who stumble. But if Mr. Casey wants to convince the nation that the news media irresponsiblyreveals secrets of great national import willy-nilly to the world, he's embarked on an illusory chase. The media do not suborn treason. We are not an open receptacle for any and all "juicy" tidbits detailing covert American operations throughout the world. There is more discretion applied to the publication and broadcasting of such information than is ever made public. There is an agonizing among journalists - at all levels - about whether or not to make public certain information. That process certainly was invoked in this most recent instance.

The epitome, perhaps, of this "national security vs. public right to know" debate centers on the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. In spite of extreme security measures to keep secret the planning for the CIA-backed Cuban exiles' invasion of their homeland, The New York Times learned of it days before the operation and prepared a story. The administration of President John F. Kennedy pressured The Times to withhold publication of the story. The newspaper agreed - believing that its publication could harm national security. In reviewing the debacle that was that invasion, one wonders whether The New York Times might not have done JFK, the invaders and the nation a favor by having printed the story.

Mr. Casey's argument that the media be held legally accountable for what he construes as violations of national security laws rings hollow. In the convoluted and anarchic world of spy vs. spy, the control and release of information is a well-honed tool; one that is wielded with equal skill by both sides. The CIA has "leaked" information that puts it in a favorable light. Their counterparts in another ideological camp have done the same. The credibility of the news media is in good measure judged by how often it can sniff out that which is valid, and that which is so much self-serving - or damaging - disinformation.

Perhaps it is time to test the constitutional strength of this arcane law that Mr. Casey cites in the NBC case - a law that has never been used to prosecute members of the news media. Perhaps, too, if Mr. Casey's public posture is to be taken seriously, he should take a more critical look at the other side of alleged "leaks" - those who leak critical information. This done, then Mr. Casey may be justified in his stone throwing at the news media.